alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L UZ MAR T HA GU Z MAN, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70698 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 754- 745 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L uz M arthaG uz m an, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n p r o c e e d i n g s . Ou rj u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We r e v i e w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . Moh am m ed v. G on zales ,



# FI LED APR27 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70698 2 400 F . 3d 785, 791 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w . T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng G uzm an’ s m ot i on t o reopen b e c au s e s h e d idn o t r e qu e s t an yr e lie f o v e rw h ic h th e B I A h a dju r is d ic tio n . See M a t ter o f Y a u ri , 2 5 I . & N . D e c . 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 ( B I A 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e al s o 8 C. F. R. § 214. 14( c ) ( 1) ( “ U S C I S ha s s ol e j ur i s di c t i on ove ra l l pe t i t i ons f orU noni m m i gr ant s ta tu s .” ) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s O c t obe r13, 2008, or de rdi s m i s s i ng G uzm an’ s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s deni alof cancel l at i on of re m ov al b e c au s e s h e f

a ile dto tim e lyp e titio n th is c o u rt f o rr e v ie w o f

th a t o r d e r . Se e Si ngh v . I NS , 31 5 F . 3d11 86 , 11 88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                       4,328,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               37,395,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,408,000
<INVENTORY>                                 94,641,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           141,799,000
<PP&E>                                      35,228,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,920,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             194,132,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       56,585,000
<BONDS>                                     16,185,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 103,524,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               194,132,000
<SALES>                                    125,053,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           125,053,000
<CGS>                                       92,415,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,415,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               172,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,198,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,798,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,814,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,984,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,984,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 9

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 60 Att. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-7 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 9 of 9
Page 1 of 1

Part 2, Section II: Accounts and Definitions

The account descriptions provide basic information about each USSGL account, including:

Account Title

Account Number

Normal Balance of the Account (Debit or Credit)

Account Definition
Before the Third Division,

October 21, 1954

No. 58435.

protest 168101-K (New York).

#### Nanking Co. and Judson-Sheldon Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entry for the date of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entry and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entry are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoice should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
Case No. 15,032.

#### UNITED STATES v. EIGHTEEN BALES OF BLANKETS.

[7 Int. Rev. Rec. 69.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1868.

Customs Duties—Forfeiture—Undervaluation.

This was a case brought to forfeit the goods for alleged undervaluation. The goods were manufactured at Piermont, near Paris, by T. A. Sollier, and by him shipped to this country, one Invoice in December, 1861, and one in January, 1862. He stated the value in the invoices at 11 francs a pair. On appraisal at the customhouse their value was raised to 15 francs a pair. A reappraisement was demanded, and the reappraisers valued them at 10 francs. Thereupon the goods were seized as forfeited for the undervaluation. The claimant gave testimony by witnesses examined on commission, that the goods though shipped in December and January, were actually manufactured by him in September previous, and that the invoice stated their value correctly at that time, while the appraisers had taken their value at the time of shipment.

Mr. Allen, for the United States.

Mr. Choate, for claimant.

THE COURT

held that under Act 1823, § 8 [3 Stat. 729], the market value at the time of manufacture was the proper value to be stated by the manufacturer in his invoice, instead of the value at the time of shipment The government witnesses were recalled and testified that the value was higher than 11 francs even at the time of manufacture, the price of blankets having risen very much after the battle of Bull Run, and the indications of a long war in this country. The question of fact as to the value at that time was left to the jury, and they found a verdict for the claimant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACOB HENRY BARRETT,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OREGON; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 35432

D.C. No. 6:14

- cv

- 01204

- HZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Jacob Henry Barrett appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state

law claims arising out of Barrett’s transfer from custody in Oregon to custody in

Florida. We hav e jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. San

Remo Hotel L.P. v. San Francisco City & County , 364 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 35432

2004), aff’d

, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (dismissal based on issue preclusion); Lee v. City

of Los Angeles , 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6)). We vacate and remand.

T he Oregon Supreme Court recently affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals

reversal of the state trial court’s judgment dismissing Barrett’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Barrett’s

complaint on the ground that it was precluded by the prior habeas decision and

remand for further proceedings. See Cmty. Bank v. Vassil , 570 P.2d 66, 68

- 69 (Or.

1977) (if a prior judgment is reversed on appeal, it no longer has preclusive effect);

see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

, 12 F.3d 908, 914

- 15 (9th Cir.

1993) (the preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a federal proceeding is

governed by state law).

Barrett’s motion for leave to file supplemental briefing, filed on November

7, 2016, is denied.

In light of the decision to remand, we do not reach any other issue on appeal.

Defendants shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.
No. 55900.

protest 75020-K (New York).

#### Burroughs Wellcome & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*323Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2024 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 8/23/23
Amendment No. 4 to Roadway LLC Pension Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 ROADWAY LLC PENSION PLAN 
 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2004) 
 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by YRC Worldwide Inc. (the “Company”)
this 1st day of July, 2008.

 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Roadway LLC Pension Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and its participating affiliates; 
 WHEREAS, Section 9.1 of the Plan provides that the Company, through action of its Board of Directors or Compensation Committee of its Board
of Directors, may amend the Plan at any time; 
 WHEREAS, the Company has determined to amend the Plan (i) to freeze future
benefit accruals for participants except those participants covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the Company and such participants’ collective bargaining representative and (ii) to clarify the definition of Average Annual
Compensation used to compute a participant’s benefit; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company agrees that the Plan is amended, effective
July 1, 2008, except as otherwise provided herein, as set forth below: 
 1. Section 2.5(b) is clarified and amended by
striking the first sentence in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu thereof: 
 Effective for Plan Years beginning on and after
January 1, 2008, the term “Average Annual Compensation” means the annual average of a Participant’s Compensation for the Participant’s final twenty (20) consecutive qualified Plan Years. 
 2. A new Section 2.5(d) is added to the Plan immediately following Section 2.5(c) of the Plan to provide as follows: 
 (d) Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, except for a Participant covered by a collective bargaining agreement relating to the Plan, for
purposes of determining a Participant’s Average Annual Compensation, no period beginning on or after July 1, 2008 shall be considered. 







 3. A new Section 2.27(d) is added to the Plan immediately following Section 2.27(c) of the Plan
to provide as follows: 
 (d) Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, except for a Participant covered by a collective
bargaining agreement relating to the Plan, for purposes of determining a Participant’s Final Average Compensation, no period beginning on or after July 1, 2008 shall be considered. 
 4. The following new sentence shall be added at the end of Section 2.56(b) to provide as follows: 
 Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, except for a Participant covered by a collective bargaining agreement relating to the Plan, for
purposes of computing an Employee’s Benefit Years of Service, no period beginning on or after July 1, 2008 shall be considered. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed on the
1st day of July, 2008. 
  

			
	YRC WORLDWIDE INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Harold D. Marshall

		 	Harold D. Marshall,
		 	Vice President-Employee Benefits
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      520
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,811
<PP&E>                                           9,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,633
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,956
<SALES>                                         67,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,421
<CGS>                                           45,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,764
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ‘COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANTI.

crviz acrron wo. O)S~w-YSS a

vs.

Kanny ( Manner Alien Western” °

Ihe NARA, wronghully Te pmin te J my
; employment Loc a false Change of Subordination
anoA malGns a threcsctenin Ss femaalc,.
No. 55886.

protests 141387-K, etc. (New York).

#### Louis Friedman *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise marked “A” or “B” on the invoices consist of watch movements, similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the items marked “A” were held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at $1.20 each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT F

Number:Name:Description:Type:Operand:Fatal Period:Proposed Analytical Period:

Right Side Attribute Combination

SZUSSGL ACCOUNT NUMBER Begin/End Zero

679500 E

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Detail Report

23Ending Proprietary Account Balance01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12

Left Side Attribute Combination

Equal (=)The sum of the pre-closing ending balances for the proprietary USSGL accounts must equal zero for each reported TAS.USSGL / Zero

Bulletin No. 2016-XX DRAFT VII EDR - 1 
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT F

Number:Name:Description:Type:Operand:Fatal Period:Proposed Analytical Period:

Right Side Attribute Combination

SZUSSGL ACCOUNT NUMBER Begin/End Zero

439701 E

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Detail Report

24Ending Budgetary Account Balance01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12

Left Side Attribute Combination

Equal (=)The sum of the pre-closing ending balance of USSGL 4000-series accounts must equal zero for each reported TAS.USSGL / Zero

Bulletin No. 2016-XX DRAFT VII EDR - 2
No. 53509.

protests 52335-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Bullocks, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the articles the subject of *Rolls Razor, Inc.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 480) and Abstract 51306. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT&"ARIAL,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2019 ReportingSection VII  &"ARIAL,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2020-08&"Arial,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"December 2019
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for

the use and benefit of GELCO

SERVICES INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EAI INTERNATIONAL, INC., et

al.,

Defendants

CIV-S-04-0814 DFL PAN 

ORDER

Plaintiff Gelco Services seeks to recover $15,540.00 in

attorney’s fees and $178 in costs from defendant Thelma Magno. 

No opposition was filed. The court finds that plaintiff’s

attorney’s billing rate of $150 per hour and the number of hours

for which plaintiff requests compensation are both reasonable. 

Therefore, the court awards plaintiff $15,540.00 in attorney’s

fees.

Plaintiff also seeks to recover the filing fee and the cost

of serving defendant Magno. These expenses are properly taxed as 

Case 2:04-cv-00814-DFL-PAN Document 45 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

costs under Local Rule 54-292(f). Therefore, the court awards

plaintiff $178.00 in costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/30/2006.

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00814-DFL-PAN Document 45 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED'S DECEMBER 31, 1997 FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,300
<INVENTORY>                                      4,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,900
<PP&E>                                       3,308,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,111,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,594,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          288,000
<BONDS>                                        233,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       539,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,594,400
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,299,900
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  866,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (5,100)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                421,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                   159,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            261,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   261,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  WE HAVE INCLUDED 
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES
IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER 
REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
May 16, 1957

No. 60764.

#### American Rug & Carpet Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 134868-K, etc.

Protests abandoned March 26, 1957. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 58925.

protest 185662-K (Ogdensburg).

#### James McFaddin *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 535), the claim of the plaiptiff was sustained.